LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. versus SURESH CHANDRA TEWARI & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 12 S.C.R. 708 · Decided: 17-12-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHANSHU DHULIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 708 : 2024 INSC 989
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
v.
Suresh Chandra Tewari & Ors. 
(Civil Appeal No. 14603 of 2024) 
17 December 2024
[Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issues arose as regards the declaration of land to be surplus when 
there was a family settlement regarding the said land, whereby 
each family member had a separate share duly demarcated and 
thus could not be clubbed and taken as the holding of only one 
tenure holder; and whether a fresh litigation could be allowed when 
the issue attained finality in the first round of litigation. 
Headnotes†
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings 
Act, 1960 – ss.5, 9 and 10 – Imposition of ceiling – Declaration 
of land to be surplus – Case of the respondent-son of the main 
recorded land owner that there has been a family settlement 
between the parties way back in the year 1967 whereby shares 
of all the family members have already been determined, 
thus, cannot be clubbed and taken as the holding of only one 
tenure holder-respondent’s father and as such land cannot 
be declared as surplus – However, the Prescribed Authority 
held that family settlement could not be relied, and passed 
order declaring some part of land as surplus – District judge 
reduced the surplus land holding that in the view of explanation 
1 to s.5(7), since the suit was instituted after the cut-off date 
24.01.71, it would be deemed that no partition took place – 
Upon remand, the land declared surplus by the Prescribed 
Authority – Said order upheld by the High Court and Special 
Leave Petition thereagainst dismissed as withdrawn – Orders 
attaining finality in first round of litigation – However, the 
respondent moved application before the Prescribed Authority 
claiming that they were joint holders of land and were not 
given separate notice, and order of the Prescribed Authority 
* Author
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 
709
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Suresh Chandra Tewari & Ors.
be re-called – Prescribed Authority again issued notice to all 
the respondents – However, the Additional Commissioner 
held that once the matter had been settled and had attained 
finality, it should not have been raked up again – Writ petition 
by the respondent – Allowed by the High Court holding that 
since after the family partition, separate notice was not given 
to each of the tenure holder,the entire procedure initiated by 
the Prescribed Authority vitiated and set aside the order of 
the Additional Commissioner – Correctness: 
Held: Respondent’s attempt to re-open the matter is nothing short 
of abuse of process – Once the entire objection regarding the family 
settlement rejected not only by all the authorities, but also by the 
High Court and then by this Court, no occasion for starting a fresh 
round of litigation which were nothing less than an abuse of the 
process of law, apart from being barred by Res Judicata – In order 
of the Additional Commissioner, stringent comment made on the 
Prescribed Authority, that this decision by the sub-ordinate court 
also raises question on the integrity of the Prescribed Authority” – 
Views of the Additional Commissioner that the entire mischief 
has been done by the Prescribed Authority, who should not have 
interfered in this matter, is accepted – However, it is too late in 
the day to issue a notice for an order passed in the year 1985 
by the Prescribed Authority, though this is indeed a case where 
a departmental enquiry should have been instituted against the 
concerned officer – Order of the High Court set aside – District 
Magistrate directed to immediately take possession of the surplus 
land as declared surplus and let the same be distributed to the 
landless or in accordance with law. [Paras 8-12]
List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960; 
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; 
Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) 
Act, 1972.
List of Keywords
Declaration of land to be surplus; Family settlement; Separate 
share of family member duly demarcated; Holding of only one 
tenure holder; Fresh litigation; First round of litigation; Prescribed 
Authority; Additional Commissioner; Abuse of the process of law; 
710
[2024] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Res Judicata; Land reform; Redistribution of surplus land; Partition 
before cut-off date; Suit instituted after cut-off date; Deemed not 
to be partition; No 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.